Shootout Part 2

[steve weiss]

Steve, great series, and a very interesting watch. A big, big thank you for making this, because its something that, ultimately, interests mainly the audience that is relatively interested in our field of work. Its target audience is too small for the production value and effort you guys put into it. So, again, a big thank you and am looking forward to next year's project

i think the problem with this, Steve, is that you added the name "great camera shootout", which, in the end, its more like "great cinematographers masterclass/challenge". Nothing wrong with this, but your target audience was looking for a new shootout with the said cameras and not this sort of entertainment, or edutainment. This series is a must see in film schools or for those getting into the craft, or even those in the "suits" side of the pond, but for the working professional/cinematographer, this probably is not what they wanted to see. I have to say i'm waiting for part 3 because I'm curious at the cameras core performance and not the talent of the cinematographers, but, still, it was an entertaining watch.

The whole point is that you are getting it all here. the title is REVENGE of the great camera shootout. The idea is that you will see what you want to see--empirical, and you will see what cinematographer can do with empirical and lastly you will see the comparison of the two with a wipe between them. It's entertainment first--I'm a director--sorry that's my job, education second--the rest of the world does not have the knowledge base that folks on this site do, and third it will give you your "shootout" out of box--no changes test. I thought the title worked and was clever as REVENGE. The problem is that people would like to see this all as one video and then all of the answers would be there. That's where the entertainment value of the cliff hanger comes in. Sorry, would you do no less?

 

[steve weiss]

To me, it looked like the EPIC was badly graded in the highlights. Whites turned into yellow, and actual yellows (woman's pants in the dark corner) were under-saturated.

Strangely, the iPhone 4s had the best browns - the parquet floor and the entrance door looked nice and browny, as they should.

What amazed me the most that no one tried to light the people's faces in a proper manner. All lighting setups had mostly dark faces.

Overall, the EPIC, Alexa and F65 had the sharpest pictures, from what I can tell on this heavily compressed video (yes, I know the resolution was brought down on the EPIC to 1080p).

I was surprised the F3 didn't look better - as I know this camera can have a really stunning output.

And yes, I agree there were too many variables to really appreciate each camera's capabilities - makes it so hard to say anything concrete.

I hope part 3 would pit the cameras against each other in a manner that lets each camera show its true colors (pun intended) in full resolution.

Bruce explains in part one that the scene is supposed to look dark. He said it's a house you walk into with just a few practices on and a ton of light streaming in from a window. Most people should be silhouette with dark faces. This scene was taylor made for the HDRX. That's what makes the scene have a 14 stop range from brightest brights to darkest blacks.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Testing all cameras with one really lame controlled sterile shot and showing them at the lowest resolution is not a good test. And also for the web this compressed video is at 720! People will watch this video online and actually come to judgements based on it! "The iPhone is not too far behind the Epic"

Well, Steve said part III would be same lighting for all cameras. The basic scene was specifically set up to challenge the cameras. There's the blown out window, no light near the door, saturated and pastel colors, soft light on the talent's faces when they sit down. For one shot, I'm not sure how much better the setup gets.

Now would you shoot a movie shot like that? With that focal length and composition. Doubt it. But that's not the point here.

Nearly every camera had a first place vote. I think Epic, Alexa and GH2 basically tied with the F3 just behind. The C300 was lit more dramatically on purpose and that may have hurt it in a camera test, but it was a pretty shot. The F-65 didn't relight because they thought the scene was easily capturable in camera.

My guess is the test with no lighting changes will yield more consistent reactions from the audience. We'll see.

I think the Zacuto guys keep doing something that's near impossible - put together a helpful camera test that opens eyes and starts discussions. The next installment will be very interesting! Thanks Steve and Co.!

 

[Paul Schneider]

To me, it looked like the EPIC was badly graded in the highlights. Whites turned into yellow, and actual yellows (woman's pants in the dark corner) were under-saturated.

Strangely, the iPhone 4s had the best browns - the parquet floor and the entrance door looked nice and browny, as they should.

What amazed me the most that no one tried to light the people's faces in a proper manner. All lighting setups had mostly dark faces.

Overall, the EPIC, Alexa and F65 had the sharpest pictures, from what I can tell on this heavily compressed video (yes, I know the resolution was brought down on the EPIC to 1080p).

I was surprised the F3 didn't look better - as I know this camera can have a really stunning output.

And yes, I agree there were too many variables to really appreciate each camera's capabilities - makes it so hard to say anything concrete.

I hope part 3 would pit the cameras against each other in a manner that lets each camera show its true colors (pun intended) in full resolution.

Seeing it projected, I thought the Epic looked great! It was graded generally like a good creative shot should look.

If there was a "flaw" to the test it was only that all the DP's seemed to be a bit hesitant to grade creatively and hence ended up going for what the camera could do technically...this made most of the scenes look bright and over lit as they tried to bring up the interiors to handle the windows. In the real world we wouldn't to this...as hardcore anyway.

I think the third part of the series will be entertaining for most having seen this one. You'll get to see what each cam does out of the box and then get to look back at what each person was ultimately able to do with the stuff.

This particular thread has been much more diplomatic than previous commentary on this topic...and its very refreshing. Steve's comments on the methodology are welcome and insightful.

 

[Stephen Matthews]

I would love the raw files from the test in part one as well as the files from the next test. Now it may not be possible and that is understandable but it would go a long way to alleviating worries with how things are handled in post. Not saying anything is wrong but looking at the epic footage I feel like I can get more range out of it and make it more pleasing... most likely I'm wrong, actually most defiantly, it would just be interesting to try.

because even if everything is handled the same in part three, due to the differences in codecs and workflows no matter what there will still be issues with how they are dealt with in post, and without giving the general audience full res still to mess with themselves it will be hard to take the results as conclusive or as a scientific comparison of cameras. Now once again I am most likely wrong so I will wait until part three comes out but just throwing out there that providing us with the raw files even if it's just stills would be amazing.

Once again thanks for doing this and being so patient with all the backlash you have had to deal with as a result.

 

[Brandon H]

Also the idea of testing cameras all completely based on one shot is ridiculous. It's like taking a national poll but your entire sample is people from the same neighborhood. They are treating this as a very methodic type of test, but it's all void because there's only ONE shot... Shoot an entire short film, with motion, variety of shots, colors and extreme real world scenarios. I think this test provides little insight into the capabilities of any of these cameras. And by downscaling to 2k for the 4K cameras aren't you throwing 80% of the pixels away? Why? Is it because they don't have a 4K projector? Is it because the lowest resolution camera is 1080P?

Shooting in the real world is messy, with tons of variables, and scenarios, this test covers hardly anything. Coming to any conclusions about any camera based on one shot (which is biased towards lower resolution cameras) is ridiculous.

I don't see any actual conclusions based on anything they've done so far, maybe part 3 will show some dynamic range capabilities (based on that same ONE shot of course), but that's it?

 

[Thomas Koch]

No matter what camera we like, or the shot, this is a great video series. It's engaging, dynamic, and it gets us all talking about cinematography. Thanks Steve! I love that we can use all of these tools and create content that will wow audiences.

 

[Paul Schneider]

Also the idea of testing cameras all completely based on one shot is ridiculous. It's like taking a national poll but your entire sample is people from the same neighborhood. They are treating this as a very methodic type of test, but it's all void because there's only ONE shot... Shoot an entire short film, with motion, variety of shots, colors and extreme real world scenarios. I think this test provides little insight into the capabilities of any of these cameras. And by downscaling to 2k for the 4K cameras aren't you throwing 80% of the pixels away? Why? Is it because they don't have a 4K projector? Is it because the lowest resolution camera is 1080P?

Shooting in the real world is messy, with tons of variables, and scenarios, this test covers hardly anything. Coming to any conclusions about any camera based on one shot (which is biased towards lower resolution cameras) is ridiculous.

I don't see any actual conclusions based on anything they've done so far, maybe part 3 will show some dynamic range capabilities (based on that same ONE shot of course), but that's it?

So what are you saying here? Should no tests, comparisons or creative reviews ever be done? It's Steve's right to make the doco he wants to make the way he chooses to make it...and it is certainly your right to comment. There are many, many folks in the world who will find this documentary useful. High-end shooters many have already be set in their ways and have done their personal tests already, but if this kind of thing gets people (and especially new shooters or younger folks) to realize that they don't need 30-40K+ worth of equipment to make their vision and to focus on what really matters creatively then I'd say its a success.

I was very impressed with what folks could pull from an iPhone and GH2. In a million years I wouldn't shoot with them now, but a few years ago I would've killed for this kind of information. The ASC interviews are lovely as well. Some free film school right there. Most of those guys have forgotten more about making films than most of us know.

I'm curious Brandon. Did you find any interest in the lighting and creative commentary of the piece?

 

[Liam Hall]

Personally, I feel that all of these “shootout” type test scenarios by their nature do not work.

I'd say this particular shootout film worked exactly as designed, that is, as a marketing film. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. In fact, as a marketing exercise I think it's genius. I agree with all your other points completely.

 

[Brandon H]

So what are you saying here? Should no tests, comparisons or creative reviews ever be done? It's Steve's right to make the doco he wants to make the way he chooses to make it...and it is certainly your right to comment. There are many, many folks in the world who will find this documentary useful. High-end shooters many have already be set in their ways and have done their personal tests already, but if this kind of thing gets people (and especially new shooters or younger folks) to realize that they don't need 30-40K+ worth of equipment to make their vision and to focus on what really matters creatively then I'd say its a success.

I was very impressed with what folks could pull from an iPhone and GH2. In a million years I wouldn't shoot with them now, but a few years ago I would've killed for this kind of information. The ASC interviews are lovely as well. Some free film school right there. Most of those guys have forgotten more about making films than most of us know.

I'm curious Brandon. Did you find any interest in the lighting and creative commentary of the piece?

No, I have no problem with camera tests. I just have a problem with this one. It claims to be "the great camera shootout" it's a bold thing to put up side by sides, people are going to expect conclusions and results. If you're going to make it a scientific test, stick to charts and graphs and test the cameras scientifically, but this is selling itself as a test of the cameras in a cinematography world. And they are hardly covering anything that occurs in the real world... And they are only taking ONE sample.

My two biggest issues with this test: it's ONE shot. And everything was scaled to 2K.... WHY?

So really part 2 of this test was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCn6G7cp5I

The way in which they've done everything so far, no real comparisons or conclusions can actually be made. The video and interviews of the cinematographers are interesting, but everything about this test is what I have a problem with.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Pretty much exactly what I expected, the good cameras were the good cameras. I don't agree with the rave reviews of the GH2 though, especially considering that the lighting package to make it competitive probably is more than the day rate for an epic.

The F3 was the best 'low-cost' camera I thought from the bunch. I've always been really impressed with its color. The F65's color was a disaster--which is odd since I've seen really well finished shots. Not sure what happened there.

 

[Chuck Z]

What bothered me is that in this test there was no consistency in lighting or grading... Every DP changed lighting/colors/brightness etc... so who really know what the hell the shot looked like right out of the camera...

Total agreement.

However, I felt the Alexa had the best balance of highlights and shadows in grading. The Epic had nice tones but scene seemed graded down altogether too dark. The F65 had some weird lighting/grading going on. It was my biggest disappointment after its name was revealed. The GH2 looked like something out of a Joe Kane Video Essentials test scene.

 

[Peter Osinski]

4k is awesome, and while I do agree that downscaling it to 1080p may not have done total justice to the camera I don't think thats as much of an issue as people are making it out to be.

Nobody has come out and said the EPIC looks soft, and when it comes to resolution the EPIC and f65 are the obvious winners. the epic and f65's resolution offers options for reframing in post as well as downscaling and vfx benefits but apart from that 4k doesn't offer anything that I think applies to this test. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "4k is the future and the future is now" on this forum but that's really not the case. It applies to movie theaters almost exclusively. TV isn't in 4k yet, there is no 4k distribution format for home use, and computer monitors are not 4k.

4k is future proofing, that's great for movies. For TV, commercials, corporate, and other types of media you don't really need future proofing because those types of projects might only be around for a few weeks to a few years. Popular TV shows like law and order for example will be around longer because they have a following and people will watch them in the future but even those will eventually become dated and we will stop watching them. Furthermore I've never watched TV land and said "this stuff looks like crap I can't watch another second". People can forgive imagine quality below the present standard when things are older just as people now still watch films with dated effects and grainy film scans.

the zacuto test showed what you can do with a variety of cameras when you have the ability to control lighting and framing variables just as you could on almost any professional shoot. If the test was "what camera will look the best when projected 5-10 years from now" then the EPIC and F65 wins, but that's not really what we are looking for is it?

If zacuto was going to include 4k projection because that's a reasonable way to see footage in 2012 in a cinema, then they should also show it on a TV compressed for broadcast, and on a computer screen scaled down to 480p and compare them all the way they would look when viewing them inside of a corporate website. What you would find is that the higher end cams look better in 4k but when viewing on a computer screen or 1080p flat screen the gap between highest and lowest scoring camera would shrink.

 

[Andy Jarosz]

Not sure if it was mentioned, but the F65 footage was "stolen" by Sony and taken off to be graded at their own facility, separate from all the others. That's why it looks so different.

Total agreement.

However, I felt the Alexa had the best balance of highlights and shadows in grading. The Epic had nice tones but scene seemed graded down altogether too dark. The F65 had some weird lighting/grading going on. It was my biggest disappointment after its name was revealed. The GH2 looked like something out of a Joe Kane Video Essentials test scene.

 

[Paul Schneider]

No, I have no problem with camera tests. I just have a problem with this one. It claims to be "the great camera shootout" it's a bold thing to put up side by sides, people are going to expect conclusions and results. If you're going to make it a scientific test, stick to charts and graphs and test the cameras scientifically, but this is selling itself as a test of the cameras in a cinematography world. And they are hardly covering anything that occurs in the real world... And they are only taking ONE sample.

My two biggest issues with this test: it's ONE shot. And everything was scaled to 2K.... WHY?

So really part 2 of this test was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCn6G7cp5I

The way in which they've done everything so far, no real comparisons or conclusions can actually be made. The video and interviews of the cinematographers are interesting, but everything about this test is what I have a problem with.

Ah, but its not the great camera shootout. Steve has said since the beginning that it was the REVENGE of such things. He was disappointed with all the minutia and technical nitpicking of previous years tests at the expense of what he felt truly mattered...the talent and skills of the DP when given the inevitable challenges of each format. Although empirical tests were conducted for each camera, the whole deal seems to be an exercise many DP's and filmmakers must face by essentially figuring out how to deal with the advantages and the shortcomings of the camera they have been dealt for whatever they need to work on.

As for the reference. It seems to be your opinion based on your misunderstanding of what they were trying to acheive...which is fine. Perhaps more could have been done to alleviate these misunderstandings as to what this year's project was all about, but Steve seemed to explain it extremely well and multiple times, so its tough to be overly harsh in my opinion. Kinda feel he's entitled to make the kind of piece he wants to make.

As for the 4K thing. That was explained as well. Over and over. My personal feeling and experience is that 99.9% of everything shot today at 4k is scaled to HD or 2k. There are also only a handful of 4k theaters in the world and a 4K file won't even fit at 100% on most monitors. Of course I would love to see such things at a higher res, but certainly understand the decision. When the 4K workflow and presentation becomes ubiquitous it'll be a requirement, but that is not today for the masses no matter the marketing hype from any company.

 

[Paul Schneider]

4k is awesome, and while I do agree that downscaling it to 1080p may not have done total justice to the camera I don't think thats as much of an issue as people are making it out to be.

Nobody has come out and said the EPIC looks soft, and when it comes to resolution the EPIC and f65 are the obvious winners. the epic and f65's resolution offers options for reframing in post as well as downscaling and vfx benefits but apart from that 4k doesn't offer anything that I think applies to this test. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "4k is the future and the future is now" on this forum but that's really not the case. It applies to movie theaters almost exclusively. TV isn't in 4k yet, there is no 4k distribution format for home use, and computer monitors are not 4k.

4k is future proofing, that's great for movies. For TV, commercials, corporate, and other types of media you don't really need future proofing because those types of projects might only be around for a few weeks to a few years. Popular TV shows like law and order for example will be around longer because they have a following and people will watch them in the future but even those will eventually become dated and we will stop watching them. Furthermore I've never watched TV land and said "this stuff looks like crap I can't watch another second". People can forgive imagine quality below the present standard when things are older just as people now still watch films with dated effects and grainy film scans.

the zacuto test showed what you can do with a variety of cameras when you have the ability to control lighting and framing variables just as you could on almost any professional shoot. If the test was "what camera will look the best when projected 5-10 years from now" then the EPIC and F65 wins, but that's not really what we are looking for is it?

If zacuto was going to include 4k projection because that's a reasonable way to see footage in 2012 in a cinema, then they should also show it on a TV compressed for broadcast, and on a computer screen scaled down to 480p and compare them all the way they would look when viewing them inside of a corporate website. What you would find is that the higher end cams look better in 4k but when viewing on a computer screen or 1080p flat screen the gap between highest and lowest scoring camera would shrink.

Great response Peter.

 

[Paul Schneider]

Not sure if it was mentioned, but the F65 footage was "stolen" by Sony and taken off to be graded at their own facility, separate from all the others. That's why it looks so different.

You are right, but stolen is a little harsh. Every company was given the opportunity to take footage and process the "creative" portion of the test however they wanted. In the case of the F65 Sony took Zacuto up on it. No other company really did this. Even RED could have taken the raw files and processed them the way they wanted if they desired.

 

[Peter Osinski]

No, I have no problem with camera tests. I just have a problem with this one. It claims to be "the great camera shootout" it's a bold thing to put up side by sides, people are going to expect conclusions and results. If you're going to make it a scientific test, stick to charts and graphs and test the cameras scientifically, but this is selling itself as a test of the cameras in a cinematography world. And they are hardly covering anything that occurs in the real world... And they are only taking ONE sample.

My two biggest issues with this test: it's ONE shot. And everything was scaled to 2K.... WHY?

So really part 2 of this test was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCn6G7cp5I

The way in which they've done everything so far, no real comparisons or conclusions can actually be made. The video and interviews of the cinematographers are interesting, but everything about this test is what I have a problem with.

I've said my peace on 4k already. As for the rest I'm curious what was everyone expecting? The poster style web advertisement is three guys standing on top of three piles of digital cinema cameras.

ok, yes it was called "revenge of the great camera shootout," but to be fair that wasn't really meant to make to be taken seriously. It's a documentary but its made to entertain. I think the fact that they dont make any claims or conclusions about the cameras but rather just showcase the opinions of people who the filmmaking community respect for the most part shows that its not serious.

There are no real rules for how to do this. This type of camera shootout is going to be irrelevant in months due to the rate that companies release new hardware. My advice to anyone who is seriously bothered by this is to keep in mind its just non-fiction based entertainment you can watch or ignore.

For example, I hate all those real houswife/dance mom/jersey shore type shows. I know they will make me mad so I just don't watch them. I did however like this shootout and look forward to part 3

I

 

[steve weiss]

No, I have no problem with camera tests. I just have a problem with this one. It claims to be "the great camera shootout" it's a bold thing to put up side by sides, people are going to expect conclusions and results. If you're going to make it a scientific test, stick to charts and graphs and test the cameras scientifically, but this is selling itself as a test of the cameras in a cinematography world. And they are hardly covering anything that occurs in the real world... And they are only taking ONE sample.

My two biggest issues with this test: it's ONE shot. And everything was scaled to 2K.... WHY?

So really part 2 of this test was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCn6G7cp5I

The way in which they've done everything so far, no real comparisons or conclusions can actually be made. The video and interviews of the cinematographers are interesting, but everything about this test is what I have a problem with.

I sometime feel like I'm up against a brick wall, probably because this is really not a forum as much as a rallying point and that's cool.
1. It's not called "the great camera shootout as you say" it's called "Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout", big difference meaning you get something new--the revenge--the test you want is coming in part three with three shots not one, the revenge part will be what we see these cameras can do out of the box vs. the wipe I'm going to do with what DP's were able to do with it out of the box on the same scene. I'm sure you'll have a million problems with it, the set, the actors, the grading, etc. but it's going to give you a pretty good idea of how it looks out of the box and what talent can do with it in a challenging scene--the REVENGE component.
2. It was screened in 2K because that is the defacto standard right now and I feel will be for possibly the next decade. People seem to think movie theaters will just buy new projectors when they already invested in 2K--why--they are dialing down the bulbs and the foot lamberts in digital projectors now to make their projectors last longer. That doesn't sound like someone who is going out and buying a new digital projector no matter how cheap it is. Plus, with all of our resolution you need to realize that people are only seeing your show at 20% reduced luminosity. Good luck seeing all of those wonderful blacks and DR. This is a fact and one that I had a long conversation with pals up at Skywalker. I'd say this is your biggest problem you have right now--not 4k projection. Let's get them to at lead project at 14 foot lampreys now so we can see the film how it was intended to be seen. I can see how dark films are presented in movie theater when they first start the films.
3. Why you want to see a chart if beyond me, life is not about charts. But you will get to see that info in part 3. And you will see the higher end camera have more DR, big surprise. Again, this whole exercise boils down to talent and no matter how we want to prove that one camera has x p##ic hairs more DR then another camera, is that really going to matter in the grand scale of things, NO. I'd take talent, creativity and experience in my DP over that any day of the week. Steve

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Personally, I feel that all of these “shootout” type test scenarios by their nature do not work. Similarly, I usually detest new camera demo films the camera manufacturers make as well. SURE you can take this new camera out into the downtown city, shoot wide-open can get an exposure… that doesn’t mean it looks GOOD with that available city lighting. That’s why I HAVE A JOB! We control/augment the lighting to enhance the look for a given set of parameters dictated by the needs of the story/product/intent.

The Zacuto camera shootout cannot really be useful to compare cameras against one another because every parameter between the cameras was changed. The F65’s lighting wasn’t changed from the reported 14 stops pre-set by Bruce Logan, meanwhile the iPhone’s lighting was supposedly brought within 4 stops????!!!! That there was a serviceable image from the iPhone compared to an Alexa doesn’t mean squat when Herculean steps are taken to get it there.

Recently, I also attended the PGA/ASC’s 2012 Image Control Assessment Series… This TITLE alone should be considered…. It’s no longer called the Camera Assessment Series. So the first point they make with this title is that you really shouldn’t be comparing the cameras via the results. In actuality, what the test demonstrated was that there is a new workflow they are trying to establish (ACES) that is KIND-OF starting to work with SOME of the cameras… THAT’S IT! That people in the audience are saying, “Well, I liked the look of the Alexa, the F3, the F65, ect (insert camera of choice here)” is rubbish when the test parameters are designed to force a camera’s workflow through a series of manipulations that aren’t necessarily ready yet, and in some cases, admittedly still in development, for a given camera. So then WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE LOOKING AT?

In about 1998 my friend Jay Holben and I performed an exhaustive series of tests for American Cinematographer of all of the modern motion picture negative stocks available at that time; which was basically Kodak and Fuji… The tests weren’t designed to pit Kodak against Fuji, but rather show EACH stock from both manufacturers and how they performed in a rigorously controlled test environment. Every parameter was precisely dialed in, measured, documented, analyzed and published. That way from the given scenario, you could see, quantify and evaluate each stock’s performance and make your own decision on which results applied to your given needs.

NONE of that scenario is present in ANY of these camera shootout series anymore. (ASC, PGA, Zacuto, nor the product demos from Arri, Sony, whoever…) Instead, we have wildly changing test scene scenarios with no published documentation of the conditions they are being recorded at. And therefore, we have no way to really know what was manipulated on set, in camera, or in post. Wouldn’t it be useful to know that one camera was subjected to 17 stops of dynamic range lighting while another was subjected to 5 stops? THAT IS FUCKING IMPORTANT, DUH! Otherwise, HOW ARE WE TO FUCKING COMPARE ANYTHING?

My other pet peeve on these test scenarios is that all of the scenes are usually pretty cheesy and not really indicative of what an actual, production-designed, artistically lit, properly applied makeup on real performers with interesting blocking and some narrative context would be in the real world. Instead we get a too small translight (bringing it too close to the window) that we are now desperately trying to NOT BLOW OUT (making it look supremely FAKE) on a generic soundstage set, shot at what looks like a T5.6 (with no atmosphere) and every nook and cranny filled in like a bad 1989 Movie of the Week. Why? Because we JUST HAVE TO SHOW how much the camera can read in the shadows…. Bruce Logan set up 14 stops of dynamic range that was then subsequently FILLED IN by the given cinematographers handling each camera… With no documentation presented with spot readings of every portion of the frame, color temperature readings, camera settings, NOT TO MENTION, all of the power windowing, primary and secondary color correction manipulation going on, JUST WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE LOOKING AT?

ALL of these tests are just a proof of concept that with a give number of cameras and a given amount of post production effort, we can produce AN IMAGE. Yay. Congrats!

I do not blame any of the individuals involved with somehow making a mistake with their efforts. In and of itself, these tests are still interesting to look at and to try to derive meaning from. But to try and compare an iPhone with an Epic is just silly. But if you were to just look at the results of this test, Prometheus would have looked almost the same had it been shot with two iPhones on a stereo rig!

I’m going to end rant now, hear some rebuttals and then continue this discussion if need be.

I agree with everything you say.